OT: Is This The Beginning Of The End For The NCAA?

[Carnac]

As we know it today, it appears so.

 

[CocoHusky]

So are these pro athletes going to have to pay for their education, room, board, training, travel, uniform and so many other expenses that I haven't mentioned?

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I’m not disputing that the top schools have an inherent advantage, but this would be one more advantage for top programs. At least today, there’s a chance for a secondary program to woo a top recruit with the pitch of immediate PT and the opportunity to build a winning tradition, etc.

Beyond that, the devil is in the details. There have been a number of indictments over 6 figure payments to player’s families from shoe companies for a player attending a specific university. The potential here is that such payments to the players themselves could be perfectly legal. So if I’m a top basketball player, and I know that if I attend Louisville that earns me a $200,000 check from Adidas, because Adidas has decided that Louisville is their flagship university for MBB, how do other schools compete for that recruit?

Nice post. The High price Universities almost always have an edge. Right now Stanford and a few others are glowing red with embarrassment, rightly so. Geno gets more than his share of "contracts" will this edict if it comes from the Feds mean Uconn kids can sell their names, pictures, autographs? While I tired of Coaches making millions because the kids do the labors of practices, classes, travel, games the Coaches make big bucks on the out come of their efforts. As a closet socialist I don't believe coaches should make the money they make. We can all fall back on the fallacious argument of the kids get the equivalent to 60,000/yr in scholarships--would coaches accept the equivalent in perks not money? (remember perks are taxed as income) Let the slings and arrows come!

 

[BroadwayVa]

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

I think some, like me, are jumping way ahead of where we will be soon. Getting fees for pix, signatures, etc isn't true professionalism but a step towards it probably. Scholarships are not payment they are an inducement that's why some top talent select better known Universities those scholarships for those not in the W mean more money usually. I think the players deserve something beyond a scholarship--i'm just not certain of what or how to do it. As @CocoHusky above points out everyone around College top sports are making money, big money.

 

[Checkmate 2.0]

What happens to recruiting? Can a school offer a scholarship as well as a promise from a booster for $$$$$ in endorsements? It will happen in MBB (actually it already is going on now). Or can endorsement money only come from a non-booster?

It sounds like a trainwreck.

 

[Grad1990]

Nice post. The High price Universities almost always have an edge. Right now Stanford and a few others are glowing red with embarrassment, rightly so. Geno gets more than his share of "contracts" will this edict if it comes from the Feds mean Uconn kids can sell their names, pictures, autographs? While I tired of Coaches making millions because the kids do the labors of practices, classes, travel, games the Coaches make big bucks on the out come of their efforts. As a closet socialist I don't believe coaches should make the money they make. We can all fall back on the fallacious argument of the kids get the equivalent to 60,000/yr in scholarships--would coaches accept the equivalent in perks not money? (remember perks are taxed as income) Let the slings and arrows come!

In your view what is the appropriate financial outcome, if any, for the players?

 

[CocoHusky]

What happens to recruiting? Can a school offer a scholarship as well as a promise from a booster for $$$$$ in endorsements? It will happen in MBB (actually it already is going on now). Or can endorsement money only come from a non-booster?
It sounds like a trainwreck.

Recruiting rules will not change. Scholarships will not change. Any incentives, enticements, or promises offered by an NCAA institution beyond the scholarship will make the players ineligible and the institution subject to discipline. Why is this so misunderstood?

 

[Checkmate 2.0]

Recruiting rules will not change. Scholarships will not change. Any incentives, enticements, or promises offered by an NCAA institution beyond the scholarship will make the players ineligible and the institution subject to discipline. Why is this so misunderstood?

Like I said the men already do it. ( not legal) The money is not offered by the school. This will offer the coaches to buy players. Then is the NCAA going to determine who deserves incentives?

 

[Alydar]

There's a new boss in town and ......



rackets never last.

 

[reno tony]

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

Great questions. Where is all the money coming from to pay these players. Will it be strictly endorsements, some type of minimum wage the universities pay, donations from boosters, ticket sales, sport paraphernalia sales, appearance fees and the list goes on. I guess I don't understand what is going to happen but it will certainly be interesting to see how this will play out.

 

[reno tony]

Just one more crazy question then I will stop. How funny would it be if some WCBB players made more money than some WNBA players? Would that be a hoot or what? I guess that is two questions.

 

[CocoHusky]

Great questions. Where is all the money coming from to pay these players. Will it be strictly endorsements, some type of minimum wage the universities pay, donations from boosters, ticket sales, sport paraphernalia sales, appearance fees and the list goes on. I guess I don't understand what is going to happen but it will certainly be interesting to see how this will play out.

I'm still not sure why this is being so misunderstood. Neither the California legislation or the NCAA change or direction yesterday says that schools are now required to "pay" the players. The change of direction was this simple: A player can now make money off their names, image and likeness. Example: If Megan walker wants to put her picture on a T-shirt and sell it she will be able to likely starting in January 2021.

 

[huskeynut]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

 

[CocoHusky]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable. Athletic scholarships because it is administered through the NCAA (Tax exempt) is not taxable.

 

[oldude]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

South Carolina’s 2 senators are named Scott & Graham. I’ve never heard of S.C. Senator Barr?

I believe you are referring to the senator from Upper Carolina, Richard Burr.

 

[CocoHusky]

South Carolina’s 2 senators are named Scott & Graham. I’ve never heard of S.C. Senator Barr?

Maybe a state senator not US?

 

[oldude]

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his/her time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable.

What is new about N.C. Senator Burr’s proposal is that scholarships would be taxable.

 

[oldude]

Maybe a state senator not US?

No. Wrong State. Wrong Senator.

 

[CocoHusky]

What is new about N.C. Senator Burr’s proposal is that scholarships would be taxable.

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable. Athletic scholarships because it is administered through the NCAA (Tax exempt) is not taxable.

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

 

[oldude]

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

We should give Senator Burr some slack. He has the misfortune of being an alumnus of Wake Forest, a school that would clearly suffer under the proposed new compensation rules for NCAA athletes.

 

[Grad1990]

I'm still not sure why this is being so misunderstood. Neither the California legislation or the NCAA change or direction yesterday says that schools are now required to "pay" the players. The change of direction was this simple: A player can now make money off their names, image and likeness. Example: If Megan walker wants to put her picture on a T-shirt and sell it she will be able to likely starting in January 2021.

In substance, how would that be different than Nike paying Megan Walker a fee for putting her name on Nike t-shirts?

 

[Grad1990]

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

You lost me on this argument. The NCAA may have tax exempt status....but their tax-exempt umbrella does not cover students, only the NCAA as an organization.

 

[CocoHusky]

In substance, how would that be different than Nike paying Megan Walker a fee for putting her name on a Nike t-shirts?

In substance no different just two minor clarifications.
1) Under the new proposed rules though Megan would have a claim to some of the money derived from the sales of the T-shirt. That money would be taxable for Megan. DT was on a clip recently posted here and mentioned that when you go to the UCONN bookstore you see the bookstore selling the same jerseys: hers, Sue, Maya. DT supports the California legislation and those former players might be entitled to some of those sales.
2) Nike has an existing contract with UCONN athletic department and rules would have to be clarified/modified about how this would work.

 

[CocoHusky]

You lost me on this argument. The NCAA may have tax exempt status....but their tax-exempt umbrella does not cover students, only the NCAA as an organization.

Athletic scholarship funds roughly ($200Million/Annually) are provided to schools through the NCAA which allows scholarship funds to be tax exempt. A student athlete does not have to list his/her scholarship as "income" at tax time.

Where Does the Money Go?

Where Does the Money Go?

www.ncaa.org

 

[huskeynut]

Ooops - my bad - its Senator Burr.

Still does not change my point. Unintended consequences will surface. Burr's is only the first.

 

[CocoHusky]

Ooops - my bad - its Senator Burr. Still does not change my point. Unintended consequences will surface. Burr's is only the first.

I don't know if it so much unintended consequences as it things are going to have to be defined and reconciled between the different pieces of legislation being proposed. For example the California law provides for "unlimited" compensation form players names ,images, & likeness. Having already changed the policy I would expect the NCAA to try and limit/cap the compensation that players can receive or reduce the value of awarded scholarships. It is totally plausible for the school to say you know what, you made boo coup dollars from your image and likeness how about you pay your tuition this year-aka, a need based model.

 

[Grad1990]

Athletic scholarship funds roughly ($200Million/Annually) are provided to schools through the NCAA which allows scholarship funds to be tax exempt. A student athlete does not have to list his/her scholarship as "income" at tax time.

Where Does the Money Go?

Where Does the Money Go?

www.ncaa.org

Thanks for the response, but it doesn't address my main point..so I'll make it more explicitly and affirmatively.

Both Congress and State Assemblies are lawfully recognized as separate and distinct taxing authorities meaning that each of them have the power to tax. Both have the power to pass a law to tax scholarship money as income should they choose to do so. The NCAA has no legal standing in the matter other than as an interested 3rd party.

 

[Grad1990]

In substance no different just two minor clarifications.
1) Under the new proposed rules though Megan would have a claim to some of the money derived from the sales of the T-shirt. That money would be taxable for Megan. DT was on a clip recently posted here and mentioned that when you go to the UCONN bookstore you see the bookstore selling the same jerseys: hers, Sue, Maya. DT supports the California legislation and those former players might be entitled to some of those sales.
2) Nike has an existing contract with UCONN athletic department and rules would have to be clarified/modified about how this would work.

My experience tells me that big institutions have already hired high powered professionals and will spend hundreds of millions on attorneys and lobbyists just on learning how to lawfully exploit the new likeness rule. You show me a major institution who fails to develop and exploit this new avenue to advantage their brand and Ill show you an institution which will eventually have major changes in leadership as well as fall behind in the competition for the best talent.

You have admitted (I bolded what I thought was key in your response) that players might benefit. There would be no purpose to the law if this wasn't the case!!!!

Left to their own devices and methods, markets are incredibly efficient at exploiting newly found freedoms in ways that at the moment you and I can't imagine.

No one could possibly believe that the States home to the SEC will stand by while California passes legislation that advantages their Universities. Not gonna happen!!!

I stand by my original comment that Pandora's box has been opened.

Now the more philosophical; historically societies and institutions all succeed or fail based on their ability to provide the most freedom possible to the most affected members that are captured under their umbrellas. In this case that would be the students.

Although the NCAA would claim otherwise, in my humble opinion its purpose is to protect institutions, not the kids. That's why I was intrigued by the highly prescient caption of your forum; "Is this the beginning of the end...?".

With respect to compensating top student athletes, In my opinion it is.

 

[JavaMan]

Jay Bilas calls the NCAA's proposal to pay athletes a bluff: It's 'frankly embarrassing'

"What the NCAA has done in the last 40 days is nothing based on principle," Bilas told USA TODAY Sports. "When the California ("Fair Pay to Play") law came out, they responded by calling it an 'existential threat' to college sports, that it's going to ruin everything if athletes are paid,' and suggesting California could be annexed from the NCAA. Now, like they always do, they're reacting. They're reacting to different state and federal governments forcing action. They're trying to stall and say, 'Look at what we're doing.' Their abandonment of any form of principle is frankly embarrassing."

Full article HERE

 

[Grad1990]

"When the California ("Fair Pay to Play") law came out, they responded by calling it an 'existential threat' to college sports, that it's going to ruin everything if athletes are paid,' and suggesting California could be annexed from the NCAA."

Thanks for posting this. My observation?

The NCAA immediately recognized the serious threat the California law poses to the NCAA protecting the billions earned by schools at the expense of student athletes in Big time sports.

The NCAA will lose this battle in a big way as the courts, and ultimately the remaining states, will never allow California schools to be disenfranchised by NCAA policies, especially considering that they have no legislative authority and have public opinion (freedom/fairness) ) against them.

Can anyone imagine top athletes attending only California schools if, in fact, California is annexed from the NCAA? This serious flaw in rationality makes the NCAA's position an adventure in silly land.

Most top student athletes will chase the money because it is the rational thing to do. In the process the NCAA would be further exposed for what they really are...a lobbying body representing educational institutions which, surely, will damage its credibility.

My guess is that NCAA leadership is too smart to defend what is ultimately indefensible. Therefor, I think they will eventually get out of the way and do what they can to control, as best they can, the outcomes.

The NCAA will still have a major role...but disenfranchising top student athletes will no longer be one of them.